Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re David H.

New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department


October 25, 2012

IN RE DAVID H., A PERSON ALLEGED TO BE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, APPELLANT. PRESENTMENT AGENCY

Matter of David H.

Decided on October 25, 2012

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Richter, Roman, JJ.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about April 5, 2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of menacing in the second degree, and placed him on enhanced supervision probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility and identification. The victim made a prompt and reliable identification of appellant. The evidence established that appellant threatened the victim by displaying what appeared to be a pistol (see Penal Law § 120.14[1]). The inability of the police to recover this object can be readily explained by the fact that appellant had an opportunity to separate himself from it.

The court's dismissal of the weapon possession count does not undermine the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting the finding as to menacing. On the contrary, the mixed finding was logical and consistent with the evidence. The weapon charge required proof that the apparent firearm displayed by appellant was actually a weapon, as set forth in Penal Law § 265.01(2).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 25, 2012

CLERK

20121025

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.